Amicus Briefs

This brief is in support of the petitioner, Mr. Coffey, who is suing under the Post Conviction Relief Act to challenge his wrongful conviction that resulted from coercive investigation tactics. More on his case here. Our brief explains: (1) how coercive interrogation tactics are likely to result in wrongful convictions; and (2) Philadelphia Police Department's documented practice of using coercive investigation tactics to obtain false accusations in the '80s and '90s.

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) vs. Whitmer is a more technical case about when claims accrue in Michigan state court. Our brief focuses on why civil rights plaintiffs should be given time to investigate claims and file a complaint.

Gilmore v. Georgia Department of Corrections et. al. concerns a woman who was subjected to an invasive strip search when she visited her incarcerated husband in Georgia state prison. The panel found that while the search violated the woman's 4th Amendment rights, the officers were protected by qualified immunity. 

In this brief we argue that the court should grant rehearing because the Panel opinion conflicts with and would undermine this Court’s decisions in prior cases that make clear that “[w]hen “mental illness” is present and apparent in a police encounter, it “must be reflected in any [Fourth Amendment] assessment of the government’s interest in the use of force.” In other words, this Court has clearly established that when police officers perceive signs of a person’s mental disability, they “should make a greater effort to take control of the situation through less intrusive means.”

In this brief, NPAP urges the Court to reverse the District Court’s grant of qualified immunity to Defendants-Appellees. The District Court’s opinion granting qualified immunity to Defendants- Appellees Aukes and Parks adopted far too restrictive a definition of “clearly established law” and should be reversed.

On February 3, 2023, a KCKPD officer shot Kansas City, Kansas resident Jon Anderton in his back. In the days that followed, KCKPD put out a vague, misleading statement that Jon was armed with a gun—suggesting that he had been a threat to the officer who shot him— but refused to provide the public with any other details. Several months after the shooting, Jon’s brother, Eric Anderton, was able to view the body-worn camera footage of the shooting. What he saw on the video did not match KCKPD’s misleading narrative.

Sargeant v. Barfield addresses whether an incarcerated person can sue a federal employee for First Amendment retaliation under Bivens. The plaintiff in this case was retaliated against for filing a grievance by an officer that was intentionally placing him in cells with people that had a known propensity for violence. 

Our brief argues accountability in these cases will not chill law enforcement job performance.

The issue in question in Chiaverini is whether a person who has been maliciously prosecuted for a crime can sue if a police officer had probable cause to arrest them for a different crime (i.e. the any crime rule).  Our brief uplifts examples of the incredibly unjust outcomes that would result from continued application of the any crime rule (eg.

This brief argues for the importance of disclosing the identities of the Seattle Police Department officers involved in the insurrection at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021.